The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines, leaving the restriction intact and signaling a cautious approach to expanding Second Amendment rights.
At a Glance
- The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s ban on large-capacity gun magazines, leaving the restriction intact.
- The law prohibits possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, with limited exceptions.
- Lower courts upheld the ban, citing historical firearm regulations and limited self-defense use of such magazines.
- The decision follows similar Supreme Court refusals to hear challenges to bans in Maryland and Rhode Island.
- Gun rights advocates argue the bans infringe on Second Amendment rights, while supporters cite public safety concerns.
Legal Landscape
On June 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s ban on large-capacity magazines, thereby upholding a lower court ruling that the restriction does not violate the Second Amendment. The ordinance prohibits possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, except for certain law enforcement and military uses. The plaintiffs—licensed concealed-carry holders—argued that such magazines are commonly owned for lawful purposes, including home defense.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals found that these magazines are rarely used in self-defense and do not fall within the “historical tradition” of protected firearm use as required by the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The Supreme Court’s action mirrors its June 2 refusal to hear challenges to similar laws in Maryland and Rhode Island, effectively allowing those bans to remain in place.
Watch a report: Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines.
Diverging Opinions
The Court’s decision has intensified the debate between gun rights proponents and public safety advocates. Organizations like the Giffords Law Center celebrated the outcome, emphasizing that large-capacity magazines are frequently linked to mass shootings and escalate fatality rates. They argue such regulations are essential for public safety and crime reduction.
In contrast, groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition maintain that high-capacity magazines are widely owned and should be considered protected under the Second Amendment. These advocates accuse the Court of sidestepping its responsibility to clarify constitutional standards post-Bruen.
While the majority remained silent, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the Court’s earlier refusal to hear the Maryland and Rhode Island cases, signaling a readiness to revisit such restrictions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, though not in formal dissent, has expressed skepticism about magazine bans and suggested the Court would need to address them directly in the future.
The Court’s repeated passivity on these cases suggests it is exercising caution in expanding gun rights jurisprudence—at least for now. But with legal challenges continuing nationwide, the Supreme Court’s next move on firearms could again reshape the national landscape.
